Governor’s vetoes mystify legislator

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

The final days of the “official” session have concluded and the budget for the next fiscal year is complete. When last I wrote this column the House and Senate were preparing to meet in Conference Committee to reconcile differences. That occurred and the report received a favorable vote by the respective legislative bodies.

The budget was then sent to the governor who had five working days to return vetoes.

The governor returned 81 vetoes and the Legislature overrode 46 of them. The reasons for those vetoes being overridden varied from the transfer of $50 million non-recurring dollars without equivalent spending cuts (a move that throws the entire budget out of balance) to differences over the importance of projects. But suffice to say that of the approximately $22 billion dollar state budget the vetoes in total amounted to a tremendously small portion of said budget.

The largest bone of contention, the implementation of a large expansion of state supported K4 education programming, was not vetoed despite the governor’s opposition. I am not sure why.

Nor do I understand why some projects and initiatives that meet the governor’s expressed definition of “pork” remain in the budget; while others that are far more important to the overall economic health of the state were eliminated.

Because of these discrepancies the Southeastern Wildlife Festival (one of the largest economic drivers in the state ... from which every county in the state receives accommodations tax revenue) will not receive funding; but the park at Folly Beach will receive funds. (By the way, I support Folly but I don’t understand the inconsistency of that approach.)

I also had placed money on the line that would have given the City of Charleston funding to add lights for Governors Park on Daniel Island and improve security under the overpass and around parking areas ... a project that serves tens of thousands of people. The governor vetoed that line, and despite the House overriding the veto, it was sustained by the deep-thinking Senate. Yet a boat ramp on Sandy Island that serves maybe 40 people was approved. I find that bizarre and frustrating.

That being said, the good news is that the state budget is balanced and our reserve accounts have been satisfied. The highlights include:

• Matching funds of $50 million to bond $500 million for roads, bridges and infrastructure

• $41 million directed to state secondary roads

• Increased state spending on K-12 education and for the base student cost of approximately $77 million

• Funding for pay increases, provided through the districts, for public school teachers

• $8 million in tax credits for private school scholarships for disabled students

• $26 million to expand the state’s 4-year-old kindergarten program

• $54 million to cover health care premium increases for state employees 30 additional state troopers

• Appropriated funds for an additional year of identity theft protection; security upgrades for state agencies and tax deductions for those individuals and families who purchase their own monitoring services

• The conservation land bank was funded and will also receive money from the Savannah River settlement

• An endless litany of unaccountable funding for higher education programs that our colleges and universities put forth. (I will write a more comprehensive column about spending in higher education later this summer.)

• Increased funding for state parks and tourism initiatives

• Increased recurring funds for aid to subdivisions, i.e. the local government fund

• Reductions in most “other fund” spending, i.e. fees generated by agencies that are essentially “off-line”.

There is much, much more in the state budget and these are only the highlights. The entire budget is posted on line at www.scstatehouse.gov. It can be found either in the section detailing bills and legislation, or through the Ways and Means or Finance Committee links.

And finally, a few local notes are in order. The Berkeley County delegation co-sponsored my bill to increase the number of precincts on Daniel Island and the Cainhoy area from two to five. These changes will go into effect for the next election and voters should receive notification of their new precincts soon. Nothing changed in Hanahan or Mount Pleasant. I will go into greater detail at a later date, but suffice to say this should reduce the three hour lines that clogged the most recent general elections.

Also, the budget includes a proviso I wrote that extends the SPA time period for transferring or selling the Daniel Island property by six months - until June 30, 2014 instead of Dec. 31. I will write a detailed explanation of this proviso in a later column, but the primary reason is to put the law on the same timetable as the state budget instead of mid-year; and to determine if some current initiatives that conform with the state law will come to fruition. Nothing in the law changes whatsoever, it just gives the SPA six additional months to comply.

Again, I will write a detailed column about the port, the port property, the Savannah River Maritime Commission lawsuit settlement, precinct changes and local issues concerning the Lowcountry in my next column.

That about covers this week’s activity. Thank you for the opportunity to represent you and our community’s interests.

Rep. Jim Merrill (R) is the former Majority Leader of the S.C. House of Representatives and represents District 99 which covers parts of Hanahan, Daniel Island, Mount Pleasant, Goose Creek, Cainhoy and North Charleston.

Comments

Notice about comments:

Moultrie News is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Moultrie News.

If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.